Agenda 21: In graphic novel form, so it must be the truth

What is Agenda 21? It’s a program at the United Nations to work on economic development, sustainable development, environmental protection, resource conservation and economic policies. As with almost all UN programs, Agenda 21 pronouncements are wholly voluntary.

Several international programs create studies and make recommendations to nations — but unless they come from the World Bank or International Monetary Fund along with loans to help nations develop, such recommendations remain mostly academic: Nations follow them only to the extent that a nation’s policy-making groups (like Congress in the U.S.) are persuaded that the recommended policies benefit the nation.

Agenda 21: It’s the biggest threat to your freedom, and unless you regularly attend yahoo-filled local planning and zoning meetings, you’ve probably never even heard of it. Until recently, this vast United Nations conspiracy to force us all to live “sustainably” was known only to stalwart defenders of Liberty and Freedom like the John Birch Society. But the underground resistance is about to go mainstream. GOP intellectual it boy Ted Cruzleads the counterstrike, and the Republican Party is even considering a public flambéing of Agenda 21in its official 2012 platform.

Looking to help break the siege of bike paths and high-quality education on our freedoms? Here’s what you’ll need to know.

[…] Agenda 21: In graphic novel form, so it must be the truth For reasons unclear to me the wacky wing of the crazy right seized upon Agenda 21 as the symbol of most things evil in the world, especially since we don’t have the Soviet Union to blame stuff on any more. Grist featured a graphic-novel-style explanation of Agenda 21, so you can follow the issues as they arise at the 2012 Republican Convention: Agenda 21: Everything you need to know about the secret U.N. plot, in one comic. […]

[…] Agenda 21: In graphic novel form, so it must be the truth For reasons unclear to me the wacky wing of the crazy right seized upon Agenda 21 as the symbol of most things evil in the world, especially since we don’t have the Soviet Union to blame stuff on any more. […]

LOL to you all – The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

So anyone who says Agenda 21 isn’t real = FAIL Also, comic says Agenda 21 isn’t thought about in the UN = FAIL. Get your facts right if you are going to criticize anyone.

Working still to either understand why the hysteria about Agenda 21, or bring back from the brink anyone with a tinge of sanity left, we continue the discussion at Agenda 21:

In response to my post of the day before (below), I got this response

saneromeo says:
October 8, 2012 at 7:45 pm

Conservation is by no means a sinister practice. Conservation as a mask for socialism though may be a bit on the creepy side. Conservation as a mask for forced abortion and sterilization measures designed to depopulate the planet are also things I find sinister.

To which I replied:

Ed Darrell says:
October 9, 2012 at 10:47 pm

Where is there any evidence of abortion, let alone forced abortion?

Where is there any evidence of sterilization?

Where is there any evidence of depopulation?

I am reminded of those who opposed the Green Revolution because they thought Norman Borlaug had put mind-control drugs in the seeds. Today, we feed an additional two billion people — and there’s no mind control drugs in the grains that do it. Agenda 21 is concerned with making sure we have enough food to feed the humans on the planet, which requires that we make sure we’ve got the land to grow the food, which means we’d better take good care of that land. It’s a Biblical principal called “stewardship.”

Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.

What are you opposed to there? You’re opposed to humans being able to fulfill their basic needs?

You’re opposed to “improved living standards for all?”

You’re opposed to protected ecosystems?

You’re opposed to a safer and more prosperous future?

You’re opposed to Christian principles of stewardship?

Really?

Another response I got, again without whiff of an indication that any of the dire things claimed can be found anywhere in any Agenda 21 document.

saneromeo says:
October 10, 2012 at 7:44 am

I am opposed to a centralized planner telling 7 billion people the “Right” way to live.
I am opposed to people being able to fulfill their basic needs off of the backs of other nations.
I am opposed to improved living standards for all when they are enforced by men with guns and law degrees.
I am opposed to protected ecosystems when they infringe on the rights of the human beings who own said ecosystems.
I’m not sure where you get a safer and much more prosperous future from, so no, I’m not opposed to that one.
I am opposed to the Christian principle of stewardship when it is twisted by the government as a catalyst to modify behavior based on inconclusive fear based science.

And, in a second response:

saneromeo says:
October 10, 2012 at 7:44 am

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development.

Redistribution is implied there, is it not? That was chapter 1 section 4. Money funneled from richer nations to poorer nations for any reason is the definition of redistribution.

Working hard not to be snarky, I explained, and asked for clarification:

Ed Darrell says:
October 10, 2012 at 10:08 am

Again I ask: Where in Agenda 21 does anyone tell anyone the right way to live? Where in Agenda 21 is there even a hint that anyone should take “basic needs off of the backs of other nations?” UN has no enforcement mechanisms. Why do you imagine “men with guns,” and what do you have against the profession of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and other liberators? Where does protection of ecosystems infringe on anyone’s rights — especially under any Agenda 21 program (remembering that the entire thing is voluntary)?

How do we get to a safer and more prosperous future when people cast basic soil and water conservation as an evil conspiracy, and that conservation is absolutely necessary to expanding human populations? It sounds to me as if you’re proposing limits on population, and misery for those left out of your scheme.

33.3. Economic growth, social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries and are themselves essential to meeting national and global sustainability objectives. In the light of the global benefits to be realized by the implementation of Agenda 21 as a whole, the provision to developing countries of effective means, inter alia, financial resources and technology, without which it will be difficult for them to fully implement their commitments, will serve the common interests of developed and developing countries and of humankind in general, including future generations.

33.4. The cost of inaction could outweigh the financial costs of implementing Agenda 21. Inaction will narrow the choices of future generations.

* * * * *

33.6. Economic conditions, both domestic and international, that encourage free trade and access to markets will help make economic growth and environmental protection mutually supportive for all countries, particularly for developing countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy (see chapter 2 for a fuller discussion of these issues).

33.7. International cooperation for sustainable development should also be strengthened in order to support and complement the efforts of developing countries, particularly the least developed countries.

33.8. All countries should assess how to translate Agenda 21 into national policies and programmes through a process that will integrate environment and development considerations. National and local priorities should be established by means that include public participation and community involvement, promoting equal opportunity for men and women.

* * * * *

33.13. In general, the financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 will come from a country’s own public and private sectors.

* * * * *

33.15. Investment. Mobilization of higher levels of foreign direct investment and technology transfers should be encouraged through national policies that promote investment and through joint ventures and other modalities.

Section IV, the finance section, urges free enterprise and wise development. It is entirely voluntary. Again I ask, where is the drastic, draconian and authoritarian scheme you complain about? This is all voluntary. At no point is any nation threatened with any punitive actions, nor could there be any way of either making such a threat nor carrying out such a threat under the UN Charter and all related documents.

In short, once again I ask where in the world you get the idea this is anything other than a bunch of people holding hands, singing Kumbayah, and hoping for the best? You seem so convinced — surely there must have been something that convinced you in the actual documents. In the 20 years since 1992, has any action come close to the dystopia you’ve imagined? Where? When?

One rather gets the feeling that these people are worked up over nothing, that they haven’t actually read the documents, nor have they studied the UN and its charter, and how it works (or often, doesn’t work). They seem wholly oblivious to the UN Charter’s having denied the UN an armed force of any kind, even a basic police force. They appear wholly unaware that, apart from a few UN Security Council pronouncements, everything else at the UN is voluntary. No coercion. They appear wholly oblivious to the UN Charter’s clear statement that the agency may never take over land inside another nation, that the UN pledges not to violate the sovereignty of any non-aggressor nation, and that the stuff called for in Agenda 21 is basic, common sense, good land management.

Why do the anti-Agenda 21 folk wish to destroy farmland? Don’t they realize that’s what they advocate?

To quote:
Many communities in the United States are participating right now. The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI. I found out my hometown spends money on this, does yours?

Many communities in the United States are participating right now. The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI. I found out my hometown spends money on this, does yours?

You should hope your hometown participates. It’s milk-toast conservation stuff. Here’s the response I left at Saneromeo’s site; it’s “in moderation,” leaving us to wonder whether any rational discussion can ever see the light of day with these guys:

To quote:. . .and whose many of its members do not share its values of liberty and individual freedoms

Oh you mean like the United States when Shrub and the GOP decided it was a jolly good idea to authorize torture?

Sorry, as Ed said the UN and it’s “plans” are voluntary. And you should bother to remember that the United States has veto authority as a member of the Security Council.

Yes yes I know you Republicans hate international diplomacy and working with other countries which I find hilarious considering that the President who you all claim to hold with such reverence, Reagan, though it international diplomacy and working with other countries was a jolly good idea.

A rational patriot wouldnt want to out source any solutions to an organisation that is antagonistic toward his country . . .

We’re talking the UN. So your explanation would apply to Osama bin Laden, perhaps, with regard to the UN, or Kim Jong-un.

But the UN is an agency dedicated to international cooperation, not to international domination. It is an essentially toothless agency. The UN has no army, and it has no way by which it might raise one, which always means that compliance with Security Council resolutions is problematic: Even the toughest pronouncements of the UN are toothless. If Syria’s President Assad wants to ignore them, he does.

Agenda 21 is dedicated to finding ways of preserving land and clean water, especially for farming to feed people, and especially for feeding a dramatically expanding and prosperous population.

Your description doesn’t apply to the UN, and more important, you still haven’t suggested any reason a patriot would prefer starvation and pollution. The UN is dedicated to peace between nations. The Charter is modeled in no small way on the Constitution of the U.S. and international law of peace as established by the U.S. following World War II. Those opposed to the UN would include Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong (mostly), and perhaps Joseph Stalin.

Was that a mystery to you? These are simple facts of history.

Have you read any of the documents of what Agenda 21 is? It sounds to me as if you are wholly unfamiliar with it, and not much familiar with the UN. The UN is regarded as a tool of the U.S. by almost every other nation on Earth. Have you ever studied the group?

. . .and whose many of its members do not share its values of liberty and individual freedoms

What poppycock. What part of the UN Charter is opposed to anything we stand for in the U.S.? We stand against war crimes. We stand opposed to poverty, and hunger. We fight diseases that kill people. The U.S. is not the barbarous state you claim at all.

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

It’s clear, simple language. What part of that could any American patriot oppose?

You said:

…that will gouge his country for coin all the while berating his country for its lifestyle.

What provision of Agenda 21 does that?

Be specific.

Every provision of Agenda 21 is voluntary. Nothing in the documents is not something that we should NOT be doing, already.

Yes there have been dust bowls, fires droughts … weather we cant control. We have regard for the environment though and compare well / out do most in the world in its protection. So why would a patriot put his trust in an other layer of unaccountable bureaucracy that will seek to grow itself on predominantly our money.

There is no bureaucracy at all. There is a call for other nations to join us.

Seriously, have you read Agenda 21 documents? They call for measures to prevent future repeats of the Dust Bowl. They call for safe and sustainable agricultural methods, not farming that depletes the land — this is a direct outgrowth of the U.S.’s Soil Conservation Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps — it’s right out of the Boy Scout merit badge on Soil and Water Conservation.

Let me guess — you think Boy Scouts are communists, right?

You see global governance as a ‘good’ , a patriot would regard it with suspicion….just look at what sort of countries make up its membership.

I see claims like that as pure folderol, insane babblings from conspiracy freaks who can’t read, or refuse to read, and prefer to confuse others with bafflegab. That’s not you, of course — so I wonder where you got that idea?

There is no provision for global governance in the UN Charter — and in fact, there are provisions specifically prohibiting it See Article 2, Sections 4 and 7, for example:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. . . .

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

* * * * * *

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Chapter 7 deals with how to stop international aggression, like Germany’s invasion of Poland and France and Russia, like Japan’s invasion of the Philippines, like China’s puppet invasion of South Korea, like Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

So again, unless you’ve got some really good evidence to suggest that the U.S. has abandoned its history, its Constitution, and the hopes for peace and prosperity of its people and has strong need to embark on a campaign of international terrorism, I cannot imagine where you’re getting the idea that there is anything in the U.N. Charter to support the things you claim to fear, nor in any Agenda 21 document.

Where in the U.N. Charter is there any possibility of global governance? Where in Agenda 21 is there anything we should not be doing?

The United States isn’t implementing Agenda 21 because there is no Agenda 21. It’s a phantom boogyman conjured by the RNC because the Republican party is no longer rational, intelligent or even dealing with reality.

A rational patriot wouldnt want to out source any solutions to an organisation that is antagonistic toward his country and whose many of its members do not share its values of liberty and individual freedoms…that will gouge his country for coin all the while berating his country for its lifestyle. Yes there have been dust bowls, fires droughts … weather we can’t control. We have regard for the environment though and compare well / out do most in the world in its protection. So why would a patriot put his trust in another layer of unaccountable bureaucracy that will seek to grow itself on predominantly our money. You see global governance as a ‘good’ , a patriot would regard it with suspicion….just look at what sort of countries make up its membership.

More critically, one might ask, why would a rational patriot not take Agenda 21 to heart? It’s not like we haven’t had our shares of Dust Bowls, forest fires, city conflagrations, floods, and just general unthinking degradation of our environment that we can afford to pretend that feeding people in the future isn’t important, and that we don’t need to worry about the land and water required to accomplish those tasks, and sustain the high quality of that land.

ER…so the USA isnt implementing Agenda 21 because the USA forgot about it. The RNC is on some paranoid frolic about Agenda 21 being forced upon its local communities …but it isnt because has been forgotten. So why did we sign it if we gonna ignore it , sounds like a good argument to bail out on it all together! .., which would be a bad thing because the cartoon depicts utopia if it was implemented. …mmmh utopian wet dreams generally end in tears , and Agenda 21 is about the utopian fantasy of us Industrialised nations banding together and ending the inequalities between us and all the poorer nations…..sounds like commie plot to me! No wonder the RNC is up in arms …a stealth agenda to transfer wealth to them poor folk in some despotic African hell hole sounds like something we should be up against ….

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted. Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required)(Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Dead Link?

We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!